Health informatics 3.0

Kalra, Dipak

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1638730

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Web 3.0, in the guise of Health Informatics 3.0, has as one goal "to enable healthy citizens, patients, and professionals to collaborate within a knowledge-empowered social network in which patient specific information and personalized realtime evidence are seamlessly interwoven" [14]. Liang et al discuss a platform to enable a user to create a profile that can be shared across multiple platforms, aiding in the assembly of patient data [16].…”

Section: User Interfacementioning

confidence: 99%

Facebook goes to the doctor

Bishop

Yellowlees

Gates³

et al. 2011

Proceedings of the 2011 Workshop on Governance of Technology, Information, and Policies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of computer-based social networks for health care changes the privacy paradigm of face-to-face treatment. For example, in an office, a patient can be reasonably sure that the physician or therapist is the only one present, and is who has been providing treatment. On a computer-based social network, communications travel over the World Wide Web, raising the possibility of eavesdropping, delay, and other problems. Further, verification of the party with whom the patient is communicating is more difficult, and to many less credible, than in-person verification. This paper describes the privacy paradigm, presents a set of requirements for effective use of computer-based social networks in health care, discusses what current technology can provide, and what gaps must be closed to meet the rest of the requirements.

show abstract

Section: User Interfacementioning

confidence: 99%

Facebook goes to the doctor

Bishop

Yellowlees

Gates³

et al. 2011

Proceedings of the 2011 Workshop on Governance of Technology, Information, and Policies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regulatory capture is common, and vendors insist regulation will retard innovation, a refrain reinforced with lobbying, sycophant researchers, and true believers. As Professor Kalra wrote in a recent keynote chapter of this yearbook series [28]:…”

Section: Acts Of Faithmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Healthcare Information Technology Based on Evidence?

Koppel¹

2013

Yearb Med Inform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryIs healthcare information technology (HIT) based on evidence of efficacy? Are the trillions of dollars already devoted and in the pipeline for HIT implementations based on systematic evaluations? If evaluated, would those evaluations focus on patient safety, return on investment, clinical efficiency, improved clinician satisfaction, and/or workflow integration? Do we have reliable evidence of usable interfaces, of successful implementations, of data standards allowing interoperability, of continuous improvement, of responsiveness to clinician feedback?While measurement of HIT's efficacy is extraordinarily difficult—complicated by a myriad of other factors involved in providing healthcare and in organizational dynamics—it is not impossible. But is such evidence required before most implementations? Any implementation? Or are the goals of patient safety and efficiency so self-evident, profoundly desired, and laudable that HIT's beneficence is accepted without rigorous data? Note that lack of systematic evidence does not mean HIT is ineffective. HIT may provide untold benefits even if there is no hard proof of those benefits.We find that HIT is seldom objectively measured, and that evidence of its efficacy is at best spotty, and often influenced by self-promotion. Most measures, especially those associated with cost-benefit analyses, are aspirational or hubris transubstantiated into numbers.

show abstract

“…These are examples of recognition of the inter-linkage between personalised health records and personalised care; the health record architecture is generic and the data are the means of personalisation. However, in the preceding issue of this Yearbook Kalra has raised the next stage of personalisation, that of the personalised functions of Web 3 and thus Health Informatics 3 [22].…”

Section: Personalising E-healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personal Health, Person-centred Health and Personalised Medicine – Concepts, Consumers, Confusion and Challenges in the Informatics World

Rigby¹

2012

Yearb Med Inform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryObjectives: To define and assess 'Consumer Health Informatics' and related emergent issues in an era of new media and of personalisation of care, and from this to define what actions need to be taken to optimise benefits and address risks. Methods: Definition of key concepts; review of health personalisation, emergent health information and communication technologies and knowledge sources available to citizens and social media; and identification of unresolved issues threatening optimal use of each. Results: A structured review supported by citations and examples. Conclusions: Several new aspects of consumer health informatics are emerging, including new knowledge sources, feedback on treatments and care providers, on-line videos, and a new generation of patient experience sites including those which are for profit and seek to influence treatment paradigms. Not just the information usage, but also the potential social challenges and malicious abuses, are global issues, and also transcend the traditional health community and thus should be addressed in partnership with other global agencies.

show abstract

Health informatics 3.0

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

Facebook goes to the doctor

Facebook goes to the doctor

Is Healthcare Information Technology Based on Evidence?

Personal Health, Person-centred Health and Personalised Medicine – Concepts, Consumers, Confusion and Challenges in the Informatics World

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About